PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Firearms



Gorbash
2008-09-16, 09:28 PM
Just a quick question - where in DMG are they described? I know/think I read it somewhere, but can't remember where, and I really want my character to have a flintlock pistol.

Siosilvar
2008-09-16, 09:30 PM
DMG page 145.

Matthew
2008-09-16, 09:31 PM
You can find the official descriptions on pages 144-5 of the 3.5 DMG.

[edit] Darn Ninjas. :smallbiggrin:

Personally, I prefer to treat them as though they have a strength score.

Ragabash
2008-09-17, 04:28 AM
I'm not really a big fan of the firearms in the DMG, at least if you're planning on using early models. They fire much too quickly, in my opinion. Being able to fire ever six seconds with a matchlock or even a flintlock weapon would be impossible.

If you can find a copy, track down the book Sorcery and Steam by Fantasy Flight Games, they have good 3.0 musket, pistol and cannon rules in there. You'll need to modify them slightly and add a couple of weapons (they kind of forgot matchlock muskets and calivers or all types...), but they take into account the difference between matchlock, flintlock and percussion cap weapons, something that many systems miss the distinction of.

Teron
2008-09-17, 04:35 AM
Eh. It's only slightly more absurd than the rate at which archers shoot.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-17, 04:43 AM
The DMG firearms are already worthless weapons - making them slower would make them entirely pointless. They are pathetic compared to bows, and lack the real main advantage of firearms - ease of use. The reason they became so prevalent wasn't effectiveness (a British yeoman with a longbow and bodkin arrows could kill a man in heavy armor at a much, much longer range), but ease of use - that whole point-and-click interface. It took literally days to train people to use firearms, compared to the years of practice required for bows. (I can't imagine how long it takes to learn to arc your shots at a small area a hundred or two hundred yards away...)

Ragabash
2008-09-17, 04:47 AM
There is one other significant advantage of firearms that the DMG doesn't take into account, though. That's armour penetration. A musket could shoot through most types of armour with ease, and it took a good quality breastplate to stop the shot from a pistol or caliver.

Thus a trained armoured knight could be brought low by a volley, even if he before could count on his armour to reduce the damage done by arrows.

Gorbash
2008-09-17, 04:57 AM
I'm not really a big fan of the firearms in the DMG, at least if you're planning on using early models. They fire much too quickly, in my opinion. Being able to fire ever six seconds with a matchlock or even a flintlock weapon would be impossible.

If you can find a copy, track down the book Sorcery and Steam by Fantasy Flight Games, they have good 3.0 musket, pistol and cannon rules in there. You'll need to modify them slightly and add a couple of weapons (they kind of forgot matchlock muskets and calivers or all types...), but they take into account the difference between matchlock, flintlock and percussion cap weapons, something that many systems miss the distinction of.

Oh I need the stats for it only as guidelines... I'll have my wizard use it, without proficiency, so I'll have a magnigicent +1 on attack rolls with it. :smallbiggrin:

Neon Knight
2008-09-17, 07:31 AM
There is one other significant advantage of firearms that the DMG doesn't take into account, though. That's armour penetration. A musket could shoot through most types of armour with ease, and it took a good quality breastplate to stop the shot from a pistol or caliver.

Thus a trained armoured knight could be brought low by a volley, even if he before could count on his armour to reduce the damage done by arrows.

Actually, the ability of any weapon, arrow or gunpowder weapon, to penetrate armor is something of significant debate. Check out the Real Weapons thread; the subject has come up numerous times, and there is no evidence which can definitely prove that matter one way or the other. There are some who claim that no armor could withstand bodkins, while others claim that plate armor made most missile fire a non-threat.

What does seem to be true is that armor existed during the civil war and probably up until smokeless powder was invented, where it died off for a while before returning as modern body armor, and that certain examples of plate mail were proofed against firearms.

In reality, it was probably logistics, cannon, and levee en masse that did in the armored knight.

DigoDragon
2008-09-17, 08:19 AM
In reality, it was probably logistics, cannon, and levee en masse that did in the armored knight.

Yeah, I can't imagine full plate being readily affordable compared to the weapons used at that time. :smallsmile:
Commander: "Okay men, we just spent all the money on guns so we can't afford armor for all of you. Thus we're going to try something new for defense in this battle. It's called DODGE."

Spiryt
2008-09-17, 08:50 AM
Actually, according to sources and physics, solid arquebus was one of the weapons that indeed had relatively big chance of defeating plate armors at close range.

But so were picks, poleaxes, warhammers... In their own ways. And of course different protections were good against different threats.

Beacuse D&D 3.5 doesn't have any rules like weapon A against armor B, making only one weapon different in that matter, won't work at all.

If one wan't to make them halfway realistic, he should go with low effective rane (low accuracy), long reload time, and massive damage.